Conciseness

The body is lean — dense tables, copy-oriented code, no explanation of what OrchardCore or Lucene is. Not 5 because the MapIndex-vs-index-profile distinction is stated three times (intro, "Decide what you need" table, Gotchas) and the execution example spells out a trivial foreach loop; efficient overall with minor trimmable redundancy.

Actionability

Mostly executable: complete recipe JSON, a full `AliasPartIndexHandler` implementation, concrete DI registrations, and an API member table. Not 5 because the "Register an indexing source" snippet is generic placeholder code — `AddIndexingSource<TIndexManager, TDocumentIndexManager, TIndexNameProvider>(providerName, implementationType)` and `AddLuceneIndexingSource(implementationType)` are signatures, not a runnable example.

Workflow Clarity

Both workflows are clearly sequenced (pick source → create → execute; profile → handler → register → reset/rebuild), but there are no validation checkpoints anywhere — no verify-index-exists, no post-rebuild smoke query, no handling for a failed indexing task. Because indexing is a batch operation and `RebuildIndex` explicitly drops the index (destructive), the missing-validation cap of 3 applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: overview, decision table, two workflows, quick reference, gotchas, and a clear References section pointing to the real one-level-deep `references/indexing.md` (verified present). Not 5 because the inline Quick Reference API tables and repo-doc paths could be consolidated into the reference file — a minor organization gap rather than the ideal overview-plus-anchors split.

Specificity

"define a query, index content for search, write an index handler, register an indexing source, or add query/index recipe steps" lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the skill's domain (queries, profiles, handlers, registration, recipe steps, search). Not level 4 because there are no meaningful coverage gaps — every capability named is a specific, discrete action.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("SQL/Lucene/Elasticsearch queries, full-text index profiles, content part/field index handlers, and search") and when ("Use when the user needs to define a query, index content for search, write an index handler, register an indexing source, or add query/index recipe steps") with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: "define a query", "index content", "search", "index handler", "recipe steps", plus SQL/Lucene/Elasticsearch. Not 5 because a few natural phrasings users would actually say are missing (e.g. "make content searchable", "full-text search" as a trigger, "Azure AI Search"); clearly above the midpoint, so 4 rather than 3 or 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scopes tightly to "OrchardCore queries and indexing" with provider-specific terms (Lucene, Elasticsearch, index handlers, index profiles) forming a clear niche unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not lower: the domain qualifier plus concrete triggers give it minimal overlap risk.